Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I agree with most of the contributions which have been made in the Senate in relation to the Migration Amendment (Strengthening Employer Compliance) Bill 2023, and I think there is broad support across this chamber generally in relation to the need to protect our migrant workers against exploitation and against, effectively, blackmail, where unscrupulous employers seek to use someone's immigration status against them in terms of coercing more work out of them, in terms of wage theft and in terms of engaging in a whole raft of practices.

At the outset, I would like to thank the department of immigration in relation to taking on board the constructive additional comments—and which I'll certainly put forward in this sense—which I provided as deputy chair of the committee. I think the amendments definitely enhance the legislation and I think they address one of the concerns that I raised—that there needed to be further detail provided with respect to a number of matters in the bill as opposed to leaving it in regulation. So I think we actually do have a better piece of legislation because of the work which the members of the department have undertaken, through the minister, in relation to the legislation. They should certainly be commended for that and hopefully will convey it to everyone involved.

Those matters included the following. I'll go through the additional comments which I provided in relation to this bill. The first was in relation to the need to make sure that sufficient resources are provided to educate employers as to their responsibilities under this new piece of legislation. This piece of legislation is going to introduce a range of compliance measures and a range of obligations upon employers—as it should do—in order to protect vulnerable migrant workers. But the quid pro quo of that needs to be that information is provided to those employers. The new regime comes into effect on 1 July. It is now early February, so there are only five months in which to provide that education to employers. So we will be looking very carefully to make sure that the department engages in the educational process that it needs to to make sure employers are across all the detail as to how to comply.

The second point I raised in relation to the legislation, which is contained in the additional comments I provided, was in relation to the need for the criteria to be specified as to the minister would take into account in considering whether or not an employer should be deemed or found to be a prohibited employer. I'm very pleased that item 20 of the amendment schedule actually does address that issue in very appropriate terms. Similarly, item 21 of the government's amendments addresses the issue with respect to the period for which an employer may be prohibited from engaging in hiring migrant workers. So, again, I think that was entirely appropriate, and again I commend the department in relation to taking onboard those constructive proposals and a number of other detailed amendments which I think enhance the legislation.

Finally, I want to, from the bottom of my heart, thank those migrant workers who shared their personal stories in relation to their experiences. Out of respect to them and out of respect to the civic organisations that provided evidence to the committee, which had its hearing in Brisbane, I want to place on the record some quotes from each of them, as a sign of respect and thanks to each of those workers. Firstly, Ms Jed Pica, a former international student who worked at a cafe, said:

Even in my case, when I found out that my employer was threatening me, I felt so ashamed. I thought that I had done something wrong, by working cash in hand. I really thought that, if he reported me to immigration, I would not know what to say. That is why I didn't take my case any further to the Fair Work Commission.

Well, I say to you, Jed, you should not be ashamed at all; you should be proud, and your family should be proud, that you spoke out about the situation you were put in.

Mr Bishal Sapkota, an international student who worked as a cleaner in Canberra, explained to the committee that a visa:

… is not just a legal piece of paper. It is hope for our parents, our dreams for the future and our path to make a better life.

Again, to you, Bishal: thank you so much for the evidence you provided to the committee. Thank you for speaking out on behalf of vulnerable migrant workers. And you and your family should be proud of the contribution you've made.

Finally, Mr Massimo Calosi, a migrant who worked as a chef in Melbourne, echoed the views of the other migrant workers:

The common factor, though, that stopped me and my fellow migrant workers from speaking up was the fear of having our visas cancelled. As it stands, that is literally a weapon that is getting used recklessly against workers by bad bosses.

Again, thank you, Massimo, for speaking out. And Massimo has actually become an activist, a supporter and advocate, for workers in similar situations. So, again, from the bottom of my heart, I commend you, Massimo, on the work you've done. With those words, I will say that I do agree with Senator McKim that we need to watch this space very carefully to make sure—and assurances were provided by the department—that workers in these vulnerable situations will not have their visas cancelled as a result of their being put in impossible situations by their employers. But I do commend the minister and the department and all those who participated in this inquiry.